IMPORTANT POINT
Limitation for making reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be extended and Section 5 of Limitation Act shall not be applicable.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Regular First Appeal No. 492/2022, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellants herein and has confirmed the order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the Reference Court, rejecting the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1894’) as barred by limitation, the original claimants have preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:

That a notification under Section 4 of the Act 1894 came to be issued for acquiring the lands in question for the construction of Gas Compressor Station and necessary facilities under the Reliance Gas Transportation, Surat on 30.07.2008. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act 1894 was issued on 1.6.2009. The Land Acquisition Officer/Collector declared the award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 awarding compensation @ Rs. 69/- per square meter, vide award dated 6.4.2011. Notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894 with a copy of the award was issued to the landowners/appellants on 25.04.2011. The appellants filed Special Civil Application No. 1428/2012 before the High Court challenging notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 as well as award dated 6.4.2011. The Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment and order dated 7.8.2012 dismissed the said writ petition. However, while dismissing the writ petition, the Division Bench reserved liberty with the appellants to pursue such remedy as may be available to them for enhancement of the compensation or any other relief to which they may be legally entitled.

2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 7.8.2012 passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition, the appellants approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. CC 7382/2013. This Court vide order dated 11.04.2013 dismissed the special leave petition on the ground of delay as well as on merits. That thereafter considering the liberty reserved in favour of the appellants reserved by the High Court while dismissing writ petition No. 1428/2012, the appellants filed reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. The Reference Court dismissed the reference as barred by limitation, having been filed beyond the period specified in Section 18(2) of the Act, 1894. The appellants preferred First Appeal No. 492/2022 before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said first appeal by observing that the Reference Court has rightly dismissed the reference as barred by limitation. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is the subject matter of the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly when the appellants challenged the acquisition proceedings which ended in 2013 when this Court dismissed the special leave petition and thereafter within a period of six months from the date of dismissal of the special leave petition, the appellants filed reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, the Reference Court ought to have entertained the same and ought to have considered the reference on merits.

3.1 It is submitted that as such while dismissing Writ Petition No. 1428/2012, the Division Bench of the High Court specifically reserved liberty in favour of the appellants to pursue such remedy as may be available to them for enhancement of compensation and thereafter when the appellants filed reference for enhancement of the compensation, the same could not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

3.2 It is submitted that therefore in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, narrated hereinabove, the time taken by the appellants in pursuing the writ petition